Psychosocial adjustment to a prostate cancer diagnosis in a cohort of radical prostatectomy patients in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The psychosocial impact of a prostate cancer diagnosis significantly affects a patient's quality of life. We studied patient communication at the time of diagnosis and its impact on psychosocial adjustment of patients. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional data analysis from self-administered questionnaires in the PROCURE biobank study, consisting of a cohort of patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy in Québec (Canada), 2006 to 2013. Odds ratios (OR) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using binary or ordered logistic regression models. RESULTS: Data from 1841 patients were analyzed. The median age of patients was 62 years (range 41-80 years), the majority was French-Canadian (68.3%) and married (79.6%). Most patients (90.1%) considered conversations with their treating physician a useful information source. Patients were dissatisfied on the communication when receiving their diagnosis by telephone (OR = 0.19, 95% CI, 0.11-0.33). Younger patients were also more dissatisfied. Most patients preferred to receive information on prostate cancer (89.5%) and radical prostatectomy (88.0%) at the time of diagnosis, while only 58.8% and 52.4% of patients received this information at this stage. Patients who were dissatisfied with the communication of the diagnosis had more negative responses, such as increased worries and fear (P < 0.05). The five most useful coping mechanisms were physical activity (62.3%), breathing exercises (44.5%), music (32.8%), faith (30.3%), and muscle relaxation (30.1%), but varied by demographics. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of physicians communicating a prostate cancer diagnosis well to their patients. Patients may benefit from individually tailored interventions to facilitate their overall coping.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".